Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire keane


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 17:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Claire keane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence here of any notability. She is an illustrator, no doubt a very competent illustrator, but no evidence that she is a notable illustrator. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a veiled advert for her new book.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete —  Richard  BB  18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. The only references I can find are mostly unreliable i.e. blogs Reb1981 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll just add that Richard BB's speedy deletion tag was declined -- and I'd say, rightly so. I can't see any basis to speedy delete, nor does he offer one here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm finding a number of reliable sources on this subject, including a Fast Company article, an NPR station article, and plenty more. Based on my research the subject appears notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition to the above the article had a improperly integrated reference section that with some love should be enough to bring it within WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable sources linked to by SouthernNights, above, is enough to pass WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems the Wall Street Journal reviewed one of her books as one of the "best new children's books." I don't have a subscription to WSJ but the review is linked here. Also, wondering why her last name is in lower case in the WP article (I usually check maiden and married name variance and noticed this.) Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: SouthernNights presents a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. I added some sources to the article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC per a WP:BEFORE source review. Here's more sources:, , , . North America1000 01:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.